Re: [PATCH 6.10 000/809] 6.10.3-rc3 review

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 8/6/24 16:24, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Cc+: Helge, parisc ML

We're chasing a weird failure which has been tracked down to the
placement of the division library functions (I assume they are imported
from libgcc).

See the thread starting at:

   https://lore.kernel.org/all/718b8afe-222f-4b3a-96d3-93af0e4ceff1@xxxxxxxxxxxx

On Tue, Aug 06 2024 at 21:25, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 8/6/24 19:33, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

So this change adds 16 bytes to __softirq() which moves the division
functions up by 16 bytes. That's all it takes to make the stupid go
away....

Heh I was actually wondering if the division is somhow messed up because
maxobj = order_objects() and order_objects() does a division. Now I suspect
it even more.

check_slab() calls into that muck, but I checked the disassembly of a
working and a broken kernel and the only difference there is the
displacement offset when the code calculates the call address, but
that's as expected a difference of 16 bytes.

Now it becomes interesting.

I added a unused function after __do_softirq() into the softirq text
section and filled it with ASM nonsense so that it occupies exactly one
page. That moves $$divoI, which is what check_slab() calls, exactly one
page forward:


With the above added to my tree, I can also play around with the code.
Here is the next weird one:

diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index 4927edec6a8c..b8a33966d858 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c
@@ -1385,6 +1385,9 @@ static int check_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab)
        }

        maxobj = order_objects(slab_order(slab), s->size);
+
+       pr_info_once("##### slab->objects=%u maxobj=%u\n", slab->objects, maxobj);
+
        if (slab->objects > maxobj) {
                slab_err(s, slab, "objects %u > max %u",
                        slab->objects, maxobj);

results in:

##### slab->objects=21 maxobj=21
=============================================================================
BUG kmem_cache_node (Not tainted): objects 21 > max 16

As Thomas noticed, this only happens if the divide assembler code is within a certain
address range.

Ok, now I am really lost.

Guenter





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux